Right to Work Cases
Lochner v. New York, 1905
Background of the Case
Joseph Lochner owned a small bakery in Utica, New York. In 1905, the state of
New York passed the Bakeshop Act which prohibited bakers from working
more than 10 hours a day, or 60 hours in one week. The New York law was
designed to improve working conditions and protect the health and safety of
bakery workers. Lochner was charged twice with violating the law by requiring
an employee to work more than 60 hours in a given week. Lochner paid a $20
fine for his first conviction. Upon a second conviction, for which he was fined
$50, Lochner decied to appeal.
After the New York appellate court upheld the law, Lochner appealled his
conviction. The case reached the Supreme Court in 1905. The law prevented
Lochner from making contracts with his employees for more than 60 hours per
week. For this reason, he argued that the Bakeshop Act violated his Fourteenth
Amendment rights of due process of law.
 What was the purpose of the Bakeshop
Act?
 Why does Lochner appeal his
conviction?
Constitutional Issue: Did the Bakeshop Act violate an employer’s right to
make contracts, or did the law properly protect the health and safety of bakery
workers?
The Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court’s decision was split 5-4 in favor of Lochner. The Court
agreed that Lochner’s Fourteenth Amendment right to due process of law has
been violated. Writing for the Court, Justice Rufus Peckham explained that the
Court believed the New York law “…intereferes with the right of contract
between the employer and employees concerning the number of hours in
which the latter may labor in the bakery of the employer.” The Court held that
the right to make business contracts is protected by the Fourteenth
Amendment of the Constitution.
 Is the Bakeshop Act unconstitutional?
 Yes
 No
EXPLAIN why/why not.
Justice Peckham wrote that although the bakery industry was not the
healthiest of trades, the Court did not deem it unhealthy enough to allow the
State to legislate the work habits and hours of its workers. In other words, the
liberty of the bakery workers to contract for work freely outweighed the state’s
interest in limiting how many hours they could work.
Lochner was one of several decisions in this period in which the Court struck
down worker protection laws due to a violation of the due process clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment.
Dissenting Opinion
There were two dissenting opinions. Justice Oliver W. Holmes, Jr. wrote the
first dissent declaring that the majority of the court’s interpretation of the
Fourteenth Amendment was incorrect. The Amendment did not support either
a protective principle of “the laissez-faire economic theory” that business and
industry should operate with minimum interference by government. Holmes
argued that the Court had upheld similar state laws in the case of Holden v.
Hardy (1898), which upheld the law enacting an eight-hour work day for
miners. Justice Holmes wrote that the case of Lochner was no different than
Hardy.
Justice John M. Harlan wrote the second dissent, with two other justices
concurring. Justice Harlan took issue with the Court’s opinion that baking was a
relativley healthy profession. Harlan concluded that baking was as unhealthy
profession, citing long hours and the lack of ventialtion, forcing bakers to
breathe flour-dusted air. Threfore, the state had a right to protect workers by
limiting their working hours.
 What reasons do Justices Holmes &
Harlan give for dissenting from the
majority opinion?
Right to Work Cases
Muller v. Oregon, 1908
Background of the Case
In 1903, the state of Oregon passed a law limiting women’s work to no more than 10
hours per day in factories and laundries. In 1905, a suit was filed against Curt Muller,
the owner of the Grand Laundry in Portland, under this Oregon state law. The state
charged that Mr. Muller had required a female employee to work more than 10 hours
on September 4, 1905. Muller was found guilty and fined $10. He appealed to the
Supreme Court of Oregon, which affirmed the conviction.
Muller than appealed the case to the United States Supreme Court on the grounds
that the Oregon law interfered with his right to make contracts with his workers
under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Muller’s argument
rested on Lochner v. New York (1905), a case that involved male bakery workers, in
which the Supreme Court struck down a New York law that limited bakers to a 10
hour work day. Muller argued that women workers were entitled to equal protection,
and had the same rights to make contracts as men.
 What was the purpose of the 1903
Oregon Law?
 Why does Muller appeal his
conviction?
The Supreme Court had ruled in Lochner that the New York law did not relate to
worker health and safety and improperly interfered with workers’ rights to work.
However, it did leave the door open for state legislation, in cases where health
concerns existed.
Attorney Louis Brandeis, who eventually became a Supreme Court Justice, was chosen
to represent the state of Oregon. He presented what became known as the “Brandeis
brief,” using scientific data to argue the need for labor legislation. It was unusual in
that it contained only two pages of legal references, and many pages of sociological
statistics from different sources. Thus, the Muller case became a major test of the
constitutionality of progressive “social” legislation relating to working conditions.
Constitutional Issue: Is a state statute limiting the length of a woman’s workday
constitutional?
The Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, upheld the Oregon law and the
judgment of the Supreme Court of Oregon. Justice David Brewer wrote the opinion
for the Court.
Justice Brewer referred directly to the Lochner case, saying that the New York law was
an arbitrary interference with laborers; right to make contracts. However, Brewer
wrote, “This assumes that the difference between the sexes does not justify a
different rule respecting a restriction of the hours of labor.”
 Is the 1903 Oregon law
unconstitutional?
 Yes
 No
EXPLAIN why/why not.
Justice Brewer indicated that it was well established that the Fourteenth Amendment
protects the rights of laborers to make contracts; however he argued that this right is
“not absolute.” The state may limit an individual’s contractual rights without coming
into direct conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Court relied heavily on the “Brandeis brief” in formulating its decision. Justice
Brewer stated, “That woman’s physical structure and the performance of maternal
functions place her at a disadvantage in the struggle for subsistence is
obvious…[Because of this] she is properly placed in a class by herself, and legislation
designed for her protection may be sustained…”
The Court’s view was that female workers, due to their ability to bear children,
merited protection by the government. It ruled that this protection did not improperly
interfere with Fourteenth Amendment rights—especially when a woman’s health was
at stake.
 What evidence helped the Court
make its decision?